[T]he court has reached a verdict and has sentenced two boys to conditional detention and civil services because of the virtual theft from the game Runescape. [T]he boys from Leeuwarden, at the time both 14 years old, forced a thirteen-year-old victim to hand over virtual goods, a mask and an amulet, and to transfer the items to their account. The thirteen year old had collected a large amount of credits with which artifacts could be purchased. The boys forced him to a house and there he was kicked and threatened with a knife, until he transferred the goods and credits.

One aspect of the case is particularly intriguing — according to MindBlizzard, “the lawyers argued during the meeting that virtual goods do not really exist, and transferring [them] does not conflict with the rules of the game, but the court thought otherwise.” The Associated Press reports that the court confirmed this analysis in a summary of its ruling: “These virtual goods are goods (under Dutch law), so this is theft.” That’s interesting, and for better or worse, one small step toward more widespread recognition of virtual goods as something more than just mere ones and zeros owned by the company hosting them. The court could have ducked this aspect of the case and simply sentenced the kids for assault, but apparently the question of the nature of virtual personal property actually came up, and the court had no issue with the concept.

The original source for this is an article in Webwereld (and the translation by Google), but nobody seems to have the any documents from the court. I’m not sure if courts in the Netherlands put documents online (probably unlikely in juvenile matters) but if anyone manages to track down anything official, send me a copy and I’ll host it here.

[Updated 10/22: A VB reader found the original court opinion and put a link to a Google translation in the comments. Thanks!]

I do not know a great deal about the Dutch legal system (except that it provides that criminal income is taxed in the same way as ordinary income, complete with allowances for business expenses (balaclavas, baseball bats, etc.)), but the result of the case is equally explicable on the basis of fraud as theft (and, in the absence of documents, one should be very wary of reaching a conclusion that a court of competent jurisdiction – even in the Netherlands – reached a conclusion that is conceptually impossible).

A virtual asset is not a chattel, and cannot sensibly be treated as such, because it is fundamentally different in character from a physical object, and absurd results would obtain if the rules relating to chattels were applied to virtual assets without modification. A virtual asset might be a chose in action (in other words, a transferable in personam right).

Those who see computer simulated physical environments as an unprecedented revolution in the fields to which the law needs to be applied, and that virtual assets as a fundamentally new invention, should visit their local stock exchanges, where virtual assets have been happily traded, and recognised as such by law, for well over a century.

Fantastic, Peter. Thanks. The court really did dive into this stuff, didn’t it? The translation isn’t great, but the court’s approach to virtual goods as “property within the meaning of [the statute]” is very clear.

From the Google translation:

In answering the question of whether virtual goods, goods in the meaning of that article, this in order to be considered.

There are a number of criteria that must be met for there to be a property within the meaning of that article. There are a number of criteria that must be there to be with for a property within the meaning of that article.

First of all, is important or good for the possessor of value. First of all, is important or good for the possessor or value. This value does not have money to be expressed. This value does not have money to be expressed.

In today’s society, the virtual goods from online computer game “Runescape” of great significance become. In today’s society, the virtual goods from online computer game “Runescape” or become great significance. For large numbers of online gamers these goods have value. For large numbers of online gamers these goods have value. The more a player virtual goods has, the stronger he is in the game. The more a player virtual goods has, he is in the Stronger The Game. Moreover, the money for virtual goods bought and sold, including via the Internet or on the playground. Moreover, the money for virtual goods bought and sold, including via the Internet or on the playground.

The case also shows that the mask and the declarant as a talisman for both suspect and co-defendant had value. The case also shows that the claimant and the mask as a talisman for both suspect and co-defendant had value.

Of interest is that not a mortal need to be. Of interest is that not a Mortal need to be. In the case law has determined that non-material objects – such as electricity and scriptural money – as well as in criminal sense. In the case law has determined that non-material objects – such as electricity and scriptural money – as well as in criminal sense. The virtual amulet and the virtual template as defined in this case are not material goods, although they are noticeable. The virtual amulet and the virtual template as defined in this case are not material goods, although they are able notice. Having regard to the said case law is that no impediment to them as well as provided for in Article 310 of the Penal Code to brands. Having regard to the said case law is that no impediment to them as well as provided for in Article 310 of the Penal Code to brands.

[...] Virtually Blind has a take on it as well: That’s interesting, and for better or worse, one small step toward more widespread recognition of virtual goods as something more than just mere ones and zeros owned by the company hosting them. [...]

I tried the google translation as well, but at times it doesn’t make sense. For that matter, not being legally educated even the Dutch orginal version was hard to understand. Yet I decided to give it a shot and translated about half of the court ruling.

Here’s the translation of the part you quoted above:

The Public Prosecutor has, in short, argued in court that the virtual amulet and the virtual mask are goods which fall under the constituent ‘good’ as provided for in Article 310 of the Penal code, whereas the counsel has argued the opposite during the hearing.

The court is considering as follows. In this case we have to deal with virtual goods, namely a virtual amulet and a virtual mask from the online game “RuneScape”. The following is known ex officio to the court about “RuneScape”. “RuneScape is one of the larger online games and especially popular among the youth. Millions of players, socalled online gamers, from all over the world play the game “RuneScape”. “RuneScape is set in a virtual world in which the players can participate with their carachters. Players may fullfill assignments ( ‘quests’), fight other players and deploy other activities. To this end players can procure ‘items’ such as a mask or amulet. The items each have a value. This value is expressed in this game in ‘coins’, fluctiating on the basis of supply and demand of these items.With those ‘coins’ a player can train skills. The more ‘coins’ a player posesses, the stronger he is in the game “RuneScape”.

Declarant, suspect and co-defendant each had an account, which gave access to playing “RuneScape” and were also active players of this game. Declarant had in his posesssion a virtual amulet and a virtual mask.

Article 310 of the Penal Code aims to protect the property of citizens In answering the question whether or not virtual goods are ‘goods’ in the meaning of that article, this aim has to be taken into consideration. There are a number of criteria that must be met for these virtual goods to considered ‘goods’ in the meaning of this article.

First of all, it is important if a good has value to the posessor. This value does not need to be expressed in money. In today’s society, the virtual goods from the online computer game “RuneScape” have become of significance. To large numbers of online players these goods have value. The more virtual goods a player has, the stronger he is in the game.Moreover, the virtual goods are bought and sold with money, e.g. through the internet or schoolyard. From this case it also shows that the mask and amulet had value to both the declarand and the suspect and co-defendant.

Of interest is that a ‘good’ need not be material. It has been determined by case law that non-material goods, such as electricity and giro transfers, are labelled ‘goods’ as well in a criminal sense. The virtual amulet and the virtual mask as considered in the case at hand are not material goods, albeith they are noticable. Regarding case law this is no prohibition to declare these as ‘goods’ under the meaning of Article 310 of the Penal Code.

Furthermore, jurisprudence shows it is an important feature of a ‘good’ in a criminal sense that the taker receives control over the goods in theft and the victim loses actual control of these goods. The posession of a good must be transferrable from one to another. When speaking of posession in a criminal sense, it means having actual power. Case law has previously determined the foregoing is not applicable in case of a PIN number, computer data and phone call minutes in a subscription bundle. In this case the virtual goods, namely a virtual amulet and a virtual mask, were in posession of the declarant. Only he had actual control over these goods. The posession of virtual goods can be transferred, e.g. by moving these goods from one account to another.

In the case at hand these goods have transferred, namely from the actual control of the declarant to that of suspect and co-defendant. Suspect and co-defendant have transferred the goods from the account of the declarant to the account of the suspect. In this act the declarant has lost actual control over these goods and suspect and co-defendant have obtained actual control over these goods.

As the virtual amulet and virtual mask as defined in the case at hand meet the aforementioned criteria, the court is of the opinion that these virtual goods are to be included in the concept of ‘goods’ as provided for in Artcile 310 of the Penal Code and belonged to the declarant.

@5 – VeeJay, that’s incredibly helpful. Thanks. I urge readers to check out VeeJay’s full translation/post on this at MindBlizzard. Here’s the link again in case you missed it at the end of that comment.

[...] 10/22: A VB reader found the original court opinion and put a link to a Google translation in the comments. Thanks!] Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. Bookmark the [...]

[...] Banking is clearly social – we use banks to make payments to each other, in all sorts of combinations. (I would maintain that actually any business is social, but that is a different post…) Social networks can be thriving economies – Second Life apparently has a huge economy mediated by “Linden dollars”; eBay a larger one using real dollars exchanged by PayPal; and Facebook credits are the social network’s currency. Dutch law recognises virtual assets within World of Warcraft as real as far as property rights are concerned. [...]

Leave a Reply

Notes on Comments: Your first comment must be manually approved, but after it is you'll be able to post freely with the same name and email. You can use some HTML (<a> <b> <i> <blockquote> etc.) but know that VB's spam blocker holds posts with five or more <a> links. VB supports gravatars. Got a gravatar? Use the associated email and it'll show with your comment. Need one? Set it up for free here.

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

About Virtually Blind

From early 2007 to late 2008, Virtually Blind covered legal news, issues, and events that impact virtual worlds, video games, and the 3D internet. The site is no longer updated, though it remains online as a research resource.

Posts and comments on VB were and are not offered as legal advice, and are not confidential attorney-client communication. Posts and comments reflect only the opinion of the author, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of VB's editor, other contributors, sponsors, or any author's employer.